geotechnical engineering report - fused industries · 2020. 8. 12. · astm d1140 standard test...

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

APBPB - BUILDINGS 1 AND 2

BAYTOWN, TEXAS

TEXAS ENGINEERING FIRM REGISTRATION NO. F-17076

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2

Baytown, Texas

Prepared by:

Gorrondona Engineering Services, Inc.

Prepared for:

National Property Holdings 3207 S. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 100

Houston, Texas 77047

Attention: Mr. Spencer Bennett

March 6, 2020

GES Project No. 20-0097

Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Materials Testing & Inspection

4641 Kennedy Commerce Drive• Houston, Texas 77032 • 281.469.3347 • Fax 281.469.3594 Texas Engineering Firm Registration No. F-17076

March 6, 2020 Mr. Spencer Bennett National Property Holdings 3207 S. Sam Houston Pkwy. E., Suite 100 Houston, Texas 77047 Re: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2 Baytown, Texas GES Project No. 20-0097 Dear Mr. Bennett: Gorrondona Engineering Services, Inc. (GES) is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the referenced project. We appreciate the opportunity of working with you. Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional services. Respectfully submitted, Vikhyath K. Gattu, E.I.T. Project Engineer Kenneth B. Riner, P.E. President

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Field Investigation ........................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................ 4

4.1 General ........................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 Geology ....................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Soil ............................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Groundwater ............................................................................................................... 7

5.0 Analysis and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 7 5.1 Seismic Site Classification ........................................................................................... 7 5.2 Potential Vertical Soil Movements .............................................................................. 7 5.3 Construction Excavations ............................................................................................ 8 5.4 Groundwater Control .................................................................................................. 9 5.5 Earthwork .................................................................................................................... 9

5.5.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................................... 9 5.5.2 Proofroll ............................................................................................................. 10 5.5.3 Grading and Drainage ........................................................................................ 10 5.5.4 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade ............................................................................. 10 5.5.5 Fill ....................................................................................................................... 11 5.5.6 Testing ................................................................................................................ 12

5.6 Demolition Considerations ....................................................................................... 12 5.7 Loading on Buried Structures .................................................................................... 13 5.8 Retaining Structures .................................................................................................. 13 5.9 Buried Pipe ................................................................................................................ 14 5.10 Foundation System ................................................................................................... 15

5.10.1 Shallow Footings ................................................................................................ 16 5.10.2 Underreamed Drilled Piers................................................................................. 17

5.11 Slab-on-Grade ........................................................................................................... 20 5.12 Pavement .................................................................................................................. 22

5.12.1 Rigid Pavement .................................................................................................. 22 5.12.2 Pavement Subgrade ........................................................................................... 23

6.0 General Comments ....................................................................................................... 23

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Project Location Diagrams Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results Appendix D - Aerial Photographs Appendix E - USGS Topographic Map Appendix F - Site Photographs Appendix G - Geologic Information Appendix H - Unified Soil Classification System

GES Project No. 20-0097 Page 1

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2

Baytown, Texas

1.0 INTRODUCTION Project Location. The project is located south of FM 565, 0.5 miles east of its intersection with South Cotton Lake Road, in Baytown, Texas. The general location and orientation of the site are provided in Appendix A - Project Location Diagrams. Project Description. The project consists of proposed two office/warehouse buildings (footprint totaling approximately 631,180 SF), truck court, and parking and drive areas. Project Authorization. This geotechnical investigation was authorized by Mr. Spencer Bennett with National Property Holdings and performed in accordance with GES Proposal No. P20-0143 dated February 18, 2020. Purpose and Methodology. The principal purposes of this investigation were to evaluate the general soil conditions at the proposed site and to develop geotechnical engineering design recommendations. To accomplish its intended purposes, the study was conducted in the following phases: (1) drill sample borings to evaluate the soil conditions at the boring locations and to obtain soil samples; (2) conduct laboratory tests on selected samples recovered from the borings to establish the pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils; and (3) perform engineering analyses, using field and laboratory data, to develop design criteria. Cautionary Statement Regarding Use of this Report. As with any geotechnical engineering report, this report presents technical information and provides detailed technical recommendations for civil and structural engineering design and construction purposes. GES, by necessity, has assumed the user of this document possesses the technical acumen to understand and properly utilize information and recommendations provided herein. GES strives to be clear in its presentation and, like the user, does not want potentially detrimental misinterpretation or misunderstanding of this report. Therefore, we encourage any user of this report with questions regarding its content to contact GES for clarification. Clarification will be provided verbally and/or issued by GES in the form of a report addendum, as appropriate. Report Specificity. This report was prepared to meet the specific needs of the client for the specific project identified. Recommendations contained herein should not be applied to any other project at this site by the client or anyone else without the explicit approval of GES.


2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION Subsurface Investigation. The subsurface investigation for this project is summarized below. Boring locations are provided in Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram. Borings “PB-01 to PB-03” were drilled during our previous geotechnical site investigation (GES Project No. 18-0585).

Boring Nos. Depth, feet bgs1 Date Drilled Location2 B-01 to B-20 and PB-01 to PB-03

20 2/24-26/2020 Building Areas

B-21 to B-25, and PB-04 10 to 20 2/24-25/2020 Paving Areas Notes: 1. bgs = below ground surface 2. Boring locations provided in Appendix B - Boring Location Diagram were not surveyed and should be

considered approximate. Borings were located by recreational hand-held GPS unit. Horizontal accuracy of such units is typically on the order of 20-feet.

Boring Logs. Subsurface conditions were defined using the sample borings. Boring logs generated during this study are included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. Borings were advanced between sample intervals using continuous flight auger drilling procedures. Cohesive Soil Sampling. Cohesive soil samples were generally obtained using Shelby tube samplers in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1587. The Shelby tube sampler consists of a thin-walled steel tube with a sharp cutting edge connected to a head equipped with a ball valve threaded for rod connection. The tube is pushed into the undisturbed soils by the hydraulic pulldown of the drilling rig. The soil specimens were extruded from the tube in the field, logged, tested for consistency using a hand penetrometer, sealed and packaged to maintain "in situ" moisture content. Consistency of Cohesive Soils. The consistency of cohesive soil samples was evaluated in the field using a calibrated hand penetrometer. In this test a 0.25-inch diameter piston is pushed into the undisturbed sample at a constant rate to a depth of 0.25-inch. The results of these tests are tabulated at the respective sample depths on the boring logs. When the capacity of the penetrometer is exceeded, the value is tabulated as 4.5+. Granular Soil Sampling. Granular soil samples were generally obtained using split-barrel sampling procedures in general accordance with ASTM D1586. In the split-barrel procedure, a disturbed sample is obtained in a standard 2-inch outside diameter (OD) split barrel sampling spoon driven 18-inches into the ground using a 140-pound (lb) hammer falling freely 30 inches. The number of blows for the last 12-inches of a standard 18-inch penetration is recorded as the Standard Penetration Test resistance (N-value). The N-values are recorded on the boring logs at the depth of sampling. Samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.


Groundwater Observations. Groundwater observations are shown on the boring logs. Borehole Plugging. Upon completion of the borings, the boreholes were backfilled from the top and plugged at the surface.

3.0 LABORATORY TESTING GES performs visual classification and any of a number of laboratory tests, as appropriate, to define pertinent engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Tests are performed in general accordance with ASTM or other standards and the results included at the respective sample depths on the boring logs or separately tabulated, as appropriate, and included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. Laboratory tests and procedures routinely utilized, as appropriate, for geotechnical investigations are tabulated below.

Test Procedure Description ASTM D421 Standard Practice for Dry Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and

Determination of Soil Constants ASTM D422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils ASTM D698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Standard Effort ASTM D1140 Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer than the No. 200 (75-μm)

Sieve ASTM D1557 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using

Modified Effort ASTM D1883 Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of Laboratory-Compacted

Soils ASTM D2166 Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of

Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D2217 Standard Practice for Wet Preparation of Soil Samples for Particle-Size Analysis and

Determination of Soil Constants ASTM D2434 Standard Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) ASTM D2435 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using

Incremental Loading ASTM D2487 Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification

System) ASTM D2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure) ASTM D2850 Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on

Cohesive Soil ASTM D2937 Standard Test Method for Density of Soil in Place by the Drive-Cylinder Method ASTM D4220 Standard Practices for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples ASTM D4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4546 Standard Test Methods for One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of

Cohesive Soils ASTM D4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil by the

Microwave Oven Method ASTM D4644 Standard Test Method for Slake Durability of Shales and Similar Weak Rocks


Test Procedure Description ASTM D4647 Standard Test Method for Identification and Classification of Dispersive Clay Soils by

the Pinhole Test ASTM D4718 Standard Practice for Correction of Unit Weight and Water Content for Soils

Containing Oversize Particles ASTM D4767 Standard Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive

Soils ASTM D4972 Standard Test method for pH of Soils

Manufacturer's Instructions

Soil Strength Determination Using a Torvane

Tex-145-E Determining Sulfate Content in Soils - Colorimetric Method

4.0 SITE CONDITIONS

4.1 General Review of Aerial Photographs. Historical aerial photographs of the site were reviewed for potential past alterations to the site which could impact geotechnical design conditions. Specifically, aerial photographs were reviewed to visually assess obvious areas of significant past fill on site. Aerial photographs reviewed for this study are identified below and are included in Appendix D - Aerial Photographs.

Aerial Photographs Reviewed Year Observations Since Prior Aerial Photograph 1970 The site was undeveloped and probably used as an agricultural land. 1995 No visible changes. 2002 There appears to be a utility easement traversing the site from the south to northeast. 2005 No visible changes. 2008 No visible changes. 2013 No visible changes. 2018 No visible changes.

Site Fills. Aerial photographs indicate the site was previously used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, we would expect surficial disturbance of site soils. Our review revealed no obvious areas of significant fill on-site. Limitations. Due to the intermittent nature and relatively low resolution of aerial photographs, as well as our lack of detailed information regarding the past land use of the site, our review should not be interpreted as eliminating the possibility of cuts and/or fills on site which could detrimentally affect future construction. Topography. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the site is provided in Appendix E - USGS Topographic Map. The map indicates the site slopes gently to the east.


Site Photographs. Photographs representative of the site at the time of this investigation are provided in Appendix F - Site Photographs. Photographed conditions are consistent with the aerial photographs and topographic map.

4.2 Geology Geologic Formation. Based on available surface geology maps and our experience, it appears this site is located in the mapped contact of the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly clay and the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly sand. A geologic atlas and USGS formation description are provided in Appendix G - Geologic Information. Soils within the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly clay, can generally be characterized as clay, silt and sand. Soils within the Beaumont Formation, areas predominantly sand, can generally be characterized as sand, silt, clay and minor amount of gravel. Geologic Faults. A review of the attached geologic map indicates the nearest geologic fault is about 0.8-miles northwest of the project site. A geologic fault study was beyond the scope of this investigation.

4.3 Soil Stratigraphy. Descriptions of the various strata and their approximate depths and thickness per the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) are provided on the boring logs included in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. Terms and symbols used in the USCS are presented in Appendix H - Unified Soil Classification System. A brief summary of the stratigraphy indicated by the borings is provided below.

Generalized Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Building Locations (Borings B-01 to B-20, and PB-01 to PB-03)

Nominal Depth, feet bgs (Except as Noted)

General

Description

Detailed Description of

Soils/Materials Encountered Top of Layer

Bottom of Layer

0 20 FAT CLAY AND LEAN CLAY WITH

SOME CLAYEY SAND

Soft to hard FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) / SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), soft to hard LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) / SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) and very stiff CLAYEY SAND (SC).

Note: Boring Termination Depth = 20 feet bgs.


Generalized Subsurface Conditions at Proposed Paving Locations (Borings B-21 to B-25, and PB-04)

Nominal Depth, feet bgs (Except as Noted)

General

Description

Detailed Description of

Soils/Materials Encountered Top of Layer

Bottom of Layer

0 10 to 20 FAT CLAY WITH SOME LEAN CLAY

Soft to hard FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) / SANDY FAT CLAY (CH), soft to very stiff LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL).

Note: Boring Termination Depth = 10- to 20 feet bgs.

Swell Potential based on Atterberg Limits. Atterberg (plastic and liquid) limits were performed on 24 shallow soil samples obtained at depths between 2- and 8-feet bgs. The plasticity index of the samples was between 28 and 71 with an average of 44 indicating that the soils have a high potential for shrinking and swelling with changes in soil moisture content. Swell Tests. Swell tests were performed on selected clay soil samples. Swell test details are provided in Appendix C - Boring Logs and Laboratory Results. The results of the tests are summarized below.

Boring No.

Avg. Depth

(ft.)

Moisture Content, w,

%

Liquid Limit, LL

Plasticity Index, PI

Applied Overburden Stress (psi)

Swell (%)

B-01 3 28 62 44 2.6 0.00 B-03 7 24 59 43 6.7 0.00 B-04 5 21 47 32 4.7 0.00 B-06 3 24 49 34 2.6 0.63 B-07 7 25 57 42 6.7 0.24 B-08 3 35 71 53 2.6 0.00 B-09 5 29 62 45 4.7 0.66 B-10 7 22 56 40 6.7 0.94 B-11 3 23 44 30 2.6 0.31 B-12 5 43 72 53 4.7 0.00 B-13 3 37 65 48 2.6 0.25 B-14 7 29 58 43 6.7 0.00 B-15 5 20 47 33 4.7 0.00 B-16 3 35 64 47 2.6 0.00 B-17 7 17 42 28 6.7 0.44 B-18 5 27 59 43 4.7 0.50

PB-01 5 36 79 62 4.7 0.00 PB-02 7 24 56 42 6.7 0.16 PB-03 3 37 90 71 2.6 0.01 PB-04 5 22 62 47 4.7 0.45


4.4 Groundwater Groundwater Levels. The borings were advanced using auger drilling and intermittent sampling methods in order to observe groundwater seepage levels. Groundwater levels encountered in the borings during this investigation are identified below.

Boring No. Depth Groundwater Initially Encountered (feet, bgs)

Groundwater Depth after 15 Minutes (feet, bgs)

B-07 18.0 18.0 B-09 18.0 Not Measured B-10 15.0 6.4

PB-04 13.0 10.8 All other borings Not Encountered Not Encountered

Long-term Groundwater Monitoring. Long-term monitoring of groundwater conditions via piezometers was not performed during this investigation and was beyond the scope of this study. Long-term monitoring can reveal groundwater levels materially different than those encountered during measurements taken while drilling the borings. Groundwater Fluctuations. Future construction activities may alter the surface and subsurface drainage characteristics of this site. It is difficult to accurately predict the magnitude of subsurface water fluctuations that might occur based upon short-term observations. The groundwater level should be expected to fluctuate throughout the years with variations in precipitation.

5.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Seismic Site Classification The seismic site classification is based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and is a classification of the site based on the type of soils encountered at the site and their engineering properties. Per Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10, the seismic site classification for this site is D.

5.2 Potential Vertical Soil Movements TxDOT Method Tex-124-E. Potential Vertical Rise (PVR) calculations were performed in general accordance with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Method Tex-124-E. The Tex-124-E method is empirical and is based on the Atterberg limits and moisture content of the subsurface soils. The calculated PVR is an empirical estimate of a soil’s potential for swell based upon the soil’s plasticity index, applied loading (due to structures or


overburden), and antecedent moisture condition. The wetter a soil’s antecedent moisture condition, the lower its calculated PVR will be for a given plasticity index and load. However, soil with a higher antecedent moisture content will be more susceptible to shrinkage due to drying. Maintaining a consistent moisture content in the soil is the key to minimizing both heave and shrinkage related structural problems. Calculated PVR using TxDOT Method Tex-124-E. The PVR calculated using TxDOT Method Tex-124-E is about 2- to 3-inches assuming an average wet antecedent moisture condition. The calculated PVR is consistent with soil moisture conditions at the time this investigation was conducted. Calculated PVR using Swell Test Results. The PVR based on the swell test results is about 1-inch. The PVR based on swell test results is dependent on the moisture conditions at the time of testing. Soil Moisture Confirmation Prior to Construction. The calculated PVR can vary considerably with prolonged wet or dry periods. We recommend the moisture content for the upper 10 feet of soils within the building pad be assessed for consistency with this report prior to construction if: (1) an extended period of time has elapsed between the performance of this investigation and construction of the foundation, or (2) unusually wet or dry weather is experienced between the performance of this investigation and construction of the foundation.

5.3 Construction Excavations Applicability. Recommendations in this section apply to short-term construction-related excavations for this project. Sloped Excavations. All sloped short-term construction excavations on-site should be designed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) excavation standards. Borings from this investigation indicated that the soils may be classified per OSHA regulations as Type B from the ground surface to a depth of 10-feet bgs. Short-term construction excavations may be constructed with a maximum slope of 1:1, horizontal to vertical (H:V), to a depth of 10-feet bgs. If excavations are to be deeper than 10-feet, we should be contacted to evaluate the excavation. Recommendations provided herein are not valid for any long-term or permanent slopes on-site. Shored Excavations. As an alternative to sloped excavations, vertical short-term construction excavations may be used in conjunction with trench boxes or other shoring systems. Shoring systems should be designed using an equivalent fluid weight of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) above the groundwater table and 95 pcf below the groundwater table. Surcharge pressures at the ground surface due to dead and live loads should be added to the


lateral earth pressures where they may occur. Lateral surcharge pressures should be assumed to act as a uniform pressure along the upper 10-feet of the excavation based on a lateral earth coefficient of 0.5. Surcharge loads set back behind the excavation at a horizontal distance equal to or greater than the excavation depth may be ignored. We recommend that no more than 200-feet of unshored excavation should be open at any one time to prevent the possibility of failure and excessive ground movement to occur. We also recommend that unshored excavations do not remain open for a period of time longer than 24-hours. Limitations. Recommendations provided herein assume there are no nearby structures or other improvements which might be detrimentally affected by the construction excavation. Before proceeding, we should be contacted to evaluate construction excavations with the potential to affect nearby structures or other improvements. Excavation Monitoring. Excavations should be monitored to confirm site soil conditions consistent with those encountered in the borings drilled as part of this study. Discrepancies in soil conditions should be brought to the attention of GES for review and revision of recommendations, as appropriate.

5.4 Groundwater Control Groundwater was encountered encountered at depths as shallow as 6.4-feet bgs during the subsurface investigation. If groundwater is encountered during excavation, dewatering to bring the groundwater below the bottom of excavations may be required. Dewatering could consist of standard sump pits and pumping procedures, which may be adequate to control seepage on a local basis during excavation. Supplemental dewatering will be required in areas where standard sump pits and pumping is not effective. Supplemental dewatering could include submersible pumps in slotted casings, well points, or eductors. The contractor should submit a groundwater control plan, prepared by a licensed engineer experienced in that type of work.

5.5 Earthwork

5.5.1 Site Preparation In the area of improvements, all concrete, trees, stumps, brush, debris, septic tanks, abandoned structures, roots, vegetation, rubbish and any other undesirable matter should be removed and properly disposed. All vegetation should be removed and the exposed surface should be scarified to an additional depth of at least 6 inches. It is the intent of these recommendations to provide a loose surface with no features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.


5.5.2 Proofroll

Building pad and paving subgrades should be proofrolled with a fully loaded tandem axle dump truck or similar pneumatic-tire equipment to locate areas of loose subgrade. In areas to be cut, the proofroll should be performed after the final grade is established. In areas to be filled, the proofroll should be performed prior to fill placement. Areas of loose or soft subgrade encountered in the proofroll should be removed and replaced with engineered fill, moisture conditioned (dried or wetted, as needed) and compacted in place.

5.5.3 Grading and Drainage Every attempt should be made to limit the extreme wetting or drying of the subsurface soils because swelling and shrinkage of these soils will result. Standard construction practices of providing good surface water drainage should be used. A positive slope of the ground away from any foundation should be provided. Ditches or swales should be provided to carry the run-off water both during and after construction. Stormwater runoff should be collected by gutters and downspouts and should discharge away from the buildings. Root systems from trees and shrubs can draw a substantial amount of water from the clay soils at this site, causing the clays to dry and shrink. This could cause settlement beneath grade-supported slabs such as floors, walks and paving. Trees and large bushes should be located a distance equal to at least one-half their anticipated mature height away from grade slabs. Lawn areas should be watered moderately, without allowing the clay soils to become too dry or too wet.

5.5.4 Wet Weather/Soft Subgrade Soft and/or wet surface soils may be encountered during construction, especially following periods of wet weather. Wet or soft surface soils can present difficulties for compaction and other construction equipment. If specified compaction cannot be achieved due to soft or wet surface soils, one of the following corrective measures will be required:

1. Removal of the wet and/or soft soil and replacement with select fill, 2. Chemical treatment of the wet and/or soft soil to improve the subgrade stability, or 3. If allowed by the schedule, drying by natural means.

Chemical treatment is usually the most effective way to improve soft and/or wet surface soils. GES should be contacted for additional recommendations if chemical treatment is planned due to wet and/or soft soils.


5.5.5 Fill Select Fill. Select fill should consist of soil with a liquid limit less than 35 and a Plasticity Index between 7 and 20. The select fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and at a moisture content between optimum and 4 percent above optimum moisture content. The subgrade to receive select fill should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted to 92 to 96 percent of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698) at a workable moisture level at least 4 percentage points above optimum and placed in loose lifts not exceeding 9 inches. Lime-treated Native Clay Soil. Based on the laboratory testing conducted for this investigation, the native clay on-site soils will not meet specifications for select fill outlined in the section titled “Fill”. As an alternative to importing select fill, the native clay soil may be blended with lime to reduce the plasticity index to meet select fill requirements. Based on our experience, we expect that it will require between 4- and 8-percent lime (by dry unit weight) to reduce the plasticity index of the native clay soils to select fill requirements. Prior to selecting this alternative, lime series tests should be performed to assess the amount of lime required. General Fill. General fill should consist of material approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with a liquid limit less than 50. General fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content. General fill placed in the building pad areas below the select fill or moisture conditioned soil for grading purposes should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and at a moisture content between optimum and 4 percent above optimum moisture content. Fill Restrictions. Select fill and general fill should consist of those materials meeting the requirements stated. Select fill and general fill should not contain material greater than 4-inches in any direction, debris, vegetation, waste material, environmentally contaminated material, or any other unsuitable material. Unsuitable Materials. Materials considered unsuitable for use as select fill or general fill include low and high plasticity silt (ML and MH), silty clay (CL-ML), organic clay and silt (OH and OL) and highly organic soils such as peat (Pt). These soils may be used for site grading and restoration in unimproved areas as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Soil placed in unimproved areas should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 10-inches and should be compacted to at least 92 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and at a moisture content within ±4 percentage points of optimum. Cautionary Note. It is extremely important that select fill placed within building pads be properly characterized using one or more representative proctor samples. The use of a


proctor sample which does not adequately represent the select fill being placed can lead to erroneous compaction (moisture and density) results which can significantly increase the potential for swelling of the select fill. The plasticity index of select fill soils placed during construction should be checked every day to confirm conformance to the project specifications and consistency with the proctor being utilized.

5.5.6 Testing Required Testing and Inspections. Field compaction and classification tests should be performed by GES. Compaction tests should be performed in each lift of the compacted material. We recommend the following minimum soil compaction testing be performed: one test per lift per 2,500 square feet (SF) in the area of the building pad, one test per lift per 5,000 SF outside the building pad, and one test per lift per 100 linear feet of utility backfill. If the materials fail to meet the density or moisture content specified, the course should be reworked as necessary to obtain the specified compaction. Classification confirmation inspection/testing should be performed daily on select fill materials (whether on-site or imported) to confirm consistency with the specifications. Liability Limitations. Since proper field inspection and testing are critical to the design recommendations provided herein, GES cannot assume responsibility or liability for recommendations provided in this report if construction inspection and/or testing is performed by another party.

5.6 Demolition Considerations Applicability. Recommendations in this section apply to the removal of any existing foundations, utilities or pavement which may be present on this site. General. Special care should be taken in the demolition and removal of existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities and pavements to minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Excessive disturbance of the subgrade resulting from demolition activities can have serious detrimental effects on planned foundation and paving elements. Existing Foundations. Existing foundations are typically slabs, shallow footings, or drilled piers. If slab or shallow footings are encountered, they should be completely removed. If drilled piers are encountered, they should be cut off at an elevation at least 24-inches below proposed grade beams or the final subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The remainder of the drilled pier should remain in place. Foundation elements to remain in place should be surveyed and superimposed on the proposed development plans to determine the potential for obstructions to the planned construction. GES should be contacted if drilled piers are to be excavated and removed completely. Additional earthwork activities will be required to make the site suitable for new construction if the piers are to be removed completely.


Existing Utilities. Existing utilities and bedding to be abandoned should be completely removed. Existing utilities and bedding may be abandoned in place if they do not interfere with planned development. Utilities which are abandoned in place should be properly pressure-grouted to completely fill the utility. Backfill. Excavations resulting from the excavation of existing foundations and utilities should be backfilled in accordance with Section 5.5.5 – Fill. Other Buried Structures. Other types of buried structures (wells, cisterns, etc.) could be located on the site. If encountered, GES should be contacted to address these types of structures on a case-by-case basis.

5.7 Loading on Buried Structures Uplift. Buried water-tight structures are subjected to uplift forces caused by differential water levels adjacent to and within the structure. Soils with any appreciable silt or sand content will likely become saturated during periods of heavy rainfall and the effective static water level will be at the ground surface. For design purposes, we recommend the groundwater level be assumed at the ground surface. Resistance to uplift pressure is provided by soil skin friction and the dead weight of the structure. Skin friction should be neglected for the upper 3 feet of soil. A skin friction of 200 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used below a depth of 3 feet. Lateral Pressure. Lateral pressures on buried structures due to soil loading can be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 95 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This includes hydrostatic pressure but does not include surcharge loads. The lateral load produced by a surcharge may be computed as 50 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure applied as a constant pressure over the full depth of the buried structure. Surcharge loads located a horizontal distance equal to or greater than the buried structure depth may be ignored. Vertical Pressure. Vertical pressures on buried structures due to soil loading can be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 125 pcf. This does not include surcharge loads. The vertical load produced by a surcharge may be computed as 100 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure applied as a constant pressure over the full width of the buried structure.

5.8 Retaining Structures Applicability. GES was not notified of any specific retaining structures in conjunction with this project. Recommendations provided in this section are applicable to structures 5-feet or


less in height. Retaining structures in excess of 5-feet should be brought to the attention of GES for a more detailed assessment. It is imperative that global stability be reviewed by GES on any retaining structure in excess of 5-feet in height. Lateral Pressure. Lateral pressures on retaining structures due to soil loading can be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 65 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) if fill behind the wall is free-draining and above the groundwater table and 95 pcf if fill behind the wall is not free draining or is below the groundwater table. This does not include surcharge loads. This also assumes a horizontal ground surface behind the structure. The lateral load produced by a surcharge may be computed as 50 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure applied as a constant pressure over the full depth of the buried structure. Surcharge loads set back behind the retaining structure at a horizontal distance equal to or greater than the structure height may be ignored. Lateral Resistance. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by the soil adjacent to the structure. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 100 pcf for lateral resistance (using a Factor of Safety of 3). An allowable coefficient of sliding friction of 0.25 (using a Factor of Safety of 2) between the retaining structure concrete footings and underlying soil may be combined with the passive lateral resistance. Bearing Capacity. Assuming a minimum embedment depth of 24-inches, an allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for retaining structure footings (using a Factor of Safety of 3).

5.9 Buried Pipe Applicability. Recommendations in this section are applicable to the design of buried piping placed by open cut methods associated with this project. Pressure on Buried Pipe. Design recommendations provided in the “Loading on Buried Structures” section of this report apply to buried piping. Thrust Restraints. Resistance to lateral forces at thrust blocks will be developed by friction developed along the base of the thrust block and passive earth pressure acting on the vertical face of the block. We recommend a coefficient of base friction of 0.25 (using a Factor of Safety of 2) along the base of the thrust block. Passive resistance on the vertical face of the thrust block may be calculated using the allowable passive earth pressures presented below.


Allowable Passive Earth Pressure by Material Type

Material Allowable Passive Pressure (psf) Native Clay and Clayey Sand 2,000

Compacted Clay Fill 1,500 Note: Passive resistance should be neglected for any portion of the thrust block within 3 feet of the final site grade. The allowable passive resistance for native clays and clayey sand is based on the thrust block bearing directly against vertical, undisturbed cuts in these materials.

Bedding and Backfill. Pipe bedding and pipe-zone backfill for the water and sanitary sewer piping should be in accordance with TxDOT standard specification Item 400 or the local equivalent. The pipe-zone consists of all materials surrounding the pipe in the trench from six (6) inches below the pipe to 12 inches above the pipe. Trench Backfill. Excavated site soils will be utilized to backfill the trenches above the pipe-zone. Backfilled soil should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and at a moisture content between optimum and 4 percent above optimum moisture content. Trench Settlement. Settlement of backfill should be anticipated. Even for properly compacted backfill, fills in excess of 8 to 10 feet are still subject to settlements over time of about 1 to 2 percent of the total fill thickness. This level of settlement can be significant for fills beneath streets. Therefore, close coordination and monitoring should be performed to reduce the potential for future movement.

5.10 Foundation System Appropriate Foundation Types. The following foundation types are appropriate to the site based on the geotechnical conditions encountered:

• Shallow footings, or • Underreamed drilled piers.

Foundation Determination. We have assumed that structural loads will be typical for the type and size of buildings proposed. Recommendations for the foundation types are presented below. Final determination of the foundation type to be utilized for this project should be made by the Structural Engineer based on loading, economic factors and risk tolerance. Avoidance of Mixing Foundation Types. Mixing of foundation types for a given building should be avoided. Where mixing of shallow footings and underreamed drilled piers is required for a given building, we should be contacted to review the foundation plans


prepared by the Structural Engineer prior to construction. Shallow footing foundations and underreamed drilled pier foundations can have incompatible movement characteristics. Foundations Adjacent to Slopes. Foundations placed too close to adjacent slopes steeper than 5:1 (H:V) may experience reduced bearing capacities and/or excessive settlement. Recommendations provided herein assume foundations are not close enough to adjacent slopes in excess of 5:1 (H:V) to be detrimentally affected. Therefore, foundations closer than 5 times the depth of adjacent slopes, pits or excavations in excess of 5:1 (H:V) should be brought to our attention in order that we may review the appropriateness of our recommendations. Assumed Maximum Cut Depth. We have also assumed that cuts of less than 1-foot will be required to bring the site to grade. In the event cuts in the building pad exceed 1-foot, we should be notified and allowed to review the design to assess the suitability of the foundation recommendations provided.

5.10.1 Shallow Footings General Requirement. Shallow strip and spread footing foundations may be used for support of the proposed structure provided that recommendations in the section entitled “Slab-on-Grade” are followed. Foundation Depth. Shallow strip and spread footing foundations should bear on select fill at a depth of 2-feet below the surrounding grade. Shallow strip and spread footings should not bear on moisture conditioned soil. If building pad soils are moisture conditioned, shallow strip and spread footings should bear 1-foot below the moisture conditioned soil on native soil. Bearing Capacity. Continuous strip footings can be proportioned using a net dead load plus sustained live load bearing pressure of 2,000 psf or a net total load bearing pressure of 3,000 psf, whichever condition results in a larger bearing surface. Individual spread footings can be proportioned using a net dead load plus sustained live load bearing pressure of 2,600 psf or a net total load bearing pressure of 3,900 psf, whichever condition results in a larger bearing surface. These bearing pressures are based on a safety factor of 3 and 2, respectively. Geometry. Individual spread footings should be at least 30 inches wide and continuous strip footing foundations should be at least 16 inches wide. Settlement. Settlement of footing foundations is influenced by a number of factors, including: load (pressure), soil consolidation properties, depth to groundwater, geometry (width and length), depth, spacing, and quality of construction. Although a detailed settlement analysis is beyond the scope of this study, settlement for foundations constructed as described above should be about 1 inch or less.


Lateral Resistance. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by the soil adjacent to the footings. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 100 pcf for lateral resistance. An allowable coefficient of sliding friction of 0.25 (using a Factor of Safety of 2) between the concrete footings and underlying soil may be combined with the passive resistance. Construction and Observation. The geotechnical engineer should monitor foundation construction to verify conditions are as anticipated and that the materials encountered are suitable for support of foundations. Soft or unsuitable soils encountered at the foundation bearing level should be removed to expose suitable, firm soil. Foundation excavations should be dry and free of loose material. Excavations for foundations should be filled with concrete before the end of the workday or sooner if necessary to prevent deterioration of the bearing surface. Prolonged exposure or inundation of the bearing surface with water will result in changes in strength and compressibility characteristics. If delays occur, the excavation should be deepened as necessary and cleaned, in order to provide a fresh bearing surface. If more than 24 hours of exposure of the bearing surface is anticipated in the excavation, a “mud slab” should be used to protect the bearing surfaces. If a mud slab is used, the foundation excavations should initially be over-excavated by approximately 4 inches and a lean concrete mud slab of approximately 4 inches in thickness should be placed in the bottom of the excavation immediately following exposure of the bearing surface by excavation. The mud slab will protect the bearing surface, maintain more uniform moisture in the subgrade, facilitate dewatering of excavations if required and provide a working surface for the placement of formwork and reinforcing steel.

5.10.2 Underreamed Drilled Piers General. Drilled pier foundations (auger-excavated, underreamed, steel reinforced, cast-in-place concrete piers) bearing in native soil may be utilized at this site for the proposed structure provided that recommendations in the section entitled “Slab-on-Grade” are followed. Foundation Depth. We recommend that underreamed piers should be founded at a depth of 8-feet beneath the existing grade. Cautionary Note. Isolated sand and silt seams were encountered at depths as shallow as 8-feet bgs in borings drilled in the building pad areas. Sand/silt may be encountered at even shallower depths in other areas of the site during construction. If sand/silt is encountered within the pier installation depths, adjustment in pier depth may be required in some areas to maintain the bottom of the piers above any caving soils. Adjustments in the depths of the piers should be observed in the field by GES. In addition, drilled, straight-shaft piers (with a straight-shaft diameter equal to the planned underream pier diameter) may need to be substituted in lieu of underreamed piers in some areas of the site due to possibility of caving soils. Field observations by GES during construction will be required to determine areas where underreaming is not possible.


Bearing Capacity. The piers may be proportioned using a net dead load plus sustained live load bearing pressure of 3,000 psf or a net total load pressure of 4,500 psf, whichever condition results in a larger bearing surface. These bearing pressures are based on a safety factor of 3 and 2, respectively, against shear failure of the foundation bearing soils. Settlement. Foundation settlement for drilled piers constructed as described above should be less than 1 inch. Lateral Capacity. Because of the potential for the upper two feet of the soil to shrink and pull away from drilled piers during dry periods, we recommend soil resistance to lateral loads on drilled piers be ignored in the upper 2-feet of the soil profile. For resistance of lateral loads on drilled piers, we recommend the following LPILE design parameters (Factor of Safety = 3 for cohesion).

Depth (feet)

Soil Type

Effective Soil Unit Weight (pcf) (1)

Allowable Cohesion, c

(psf)

Angle of Internal Friction, Φ (degrees)

Strain at ½ Peak

Strength, ε50

Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, k (for

lateral loads) (pci)

0 - 2 Clay 120 0 0 NA NA

2 - 6 Clay 120 500 0 0.007 200

6 - 8 Clay 65 500 0 0.007 200

(1) – Effective soil unit weight based on assumed groundwater depth at 6-feet bgs. pcf = pounds per cubic foot; psf = pounds per square foot; pci = pounds per cubic inch

Uplift. The uplift force on the piers due to swelling of the active clays can be approximated by assuming a uniform uplift pressure of 1,000 psf acting over the perimeter of the shaft to a depth of 8 feet. The shafts should contain sufficient full length reinforcing steel to resist uplift forces. Uplift Resistance. The uplift resistance provided by an underreamed drilled pier is the sum of resistance provided by the shear strength of the soil, the weight of the soil above the bell and the weight of the drilled pier itself. The following equation may be used to calculate the allowable uplift resistance:

21

FScW

FSsW

AcNRaF uuF ++=

Where: Fa = allowable uplift resistance, lbs c = allowable cohesion, psf

Nu = bearing capacity factor = 953

≤b

b

BD.

RF = reduction factor for closer pier spacings (discussed below)


Db = depth to base of bell, ft Bb = diameter of the bell, ft

Au = projected area of bell, ft2 = 4

22 )( sb BB −π

Bs = diameter of the drilled pier shaft, ft Ws = weight of soil above bell, lbs Wc = weight of drilled pier, lbs FS1, FS2 = safety factors A safety factor of 3 has been applied to the allowable cohesion value and is appropriate for sustained loading conditions. However, the allowable cohesion values may be increased by 50 percent, resulting in a safety factor of 2, for transient loading conditions. We recommend a soil weight safety factor, FS1, of 1.2 and a drilled pier weight safety factor, FS2, of 1.1. Shaft/Diameter Ratio. The piers should be provided with an underream diameter to shaft diameter ratio not less than 2 to 1 and not greater than 3 to 1. Fat clay soils at this site are slickensided and underream excavations may experience significant sloughing as a result. This site will be prone to requiring reduced underream to shaft diameters. Pier Spacing. For uplift considerations, piers should not be spaced closer than two underream diameters (edge to edge) based on the diameter of the larger underream. Closer pier spacings may result in reduced uplift capacity. We should be contacted to review closer pier spacings on a case-by-case basis. Reduction Factor (RF) for Closer Pier Spacings. A reduction in uplift resistance will be required for piers spaced closer than two underream diameters (edge to edge) as discussed above. The reduction factor is dependent on the number of piers in close proximity to the pier in question. Table below shows the recommended Reduction Factor (RF) values based on number of piers in close proximity to the pier in question:

Numbers of Piers in Close Proximity to a Given Pier Reduction Factor (RF) Piers > 2 Diameters Edge-to-Edge Spacing 1

1 0.6 2 0.4 3 0.2

Greater than or equal to 4 0 There will be no reduction in uplift resistance contribution from the weight of soil above bell and weight of drilled pier. GES should be contacted to review the final foundation plans for review. Construction Observation. The construction of all piers should be observed as a means to verify compliance with design assumptions and to verify:

1. the bearing stratum;


2. underream size; 3. the removal of all smear zones and cuttings; 4. that groundwater seepage, when encountered, is correctly handled; and 5. that the shafts are vertical (within acceptable tolerance).

Groundwater. Groundwater was encountered at depths as shallow as 6.4-feet bgs during the subsurface investigation. Additionally, groundwater may be encountered during pier excavation and the risk of groundwater seepage is increased during or after periods of precipitation. Submersible pumps may be capable of controlling seepage in the pier excavation to allow for concrete placement. Applicable TxDOT Standards. Drilled pier foundations should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of TxDOT Item 416 (standard specification for construction of drilled pier foundations). This specification includes requirements for construction using casing or the slurry displacement method, as appropriate. We should be contacted for further evaluation and recommendations if soils other than those anticipated to be encountered at the design foundation bearing level, or if groundwater seepage and/or underream collapse occurs. Concrete Placement. Concrete should be placed in the shafts immediately after excavation to reduce the risk of significant groundwater seepage, deterioration of the foundation-bearing surface and underream collapse. In no event should a pier excavation be allowed to remain open for more than 8 hours. Concrete should have a slump of 5 to 7 inches and should not be allowed to strike the shaft sidewall or steel reinforcement during placement.

5.11 Slab-on-Grade Potential Vertical Slab Movements. Based on the information gathered during this investigation, a slab constructed on-grade will be subject to potential vertical slab movements of about 1- to 3-inches. Subgrade Treatment Using Select Fill. The depth of subgrade treatment is dependent on desired post-construction PVR. The table below presents recommended depth of subgrade treatment for various post-construction PVR levels.


Subgrade Treatment - Select Fill Option

PVR (inches)

Minimum Thickness of Select Fill Soil (feet, bgs)

Thickness of Compacted Subgrade below Select Fill

(inches)(1) 1 3.5 6

Note: 1. The subgrade to receive select fill soil should be scarified to a depth indicated above. The scarified

subgrade should be compacted to 92 to 96 percent of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698) at a workable moisture level at least 4 percentage points above optimum and placed in loose lifts not exceeding 9 inches.

In areas where less than the recommended thickness of fill is required to bring the building pad to grade, we recommend that the existing soils be excavated to the depth recommended in table above and replaced with select fill. Subgrade treatment should extend at least 3-feet horizontally beyond the perimeter of the building. Subgrade Treatment Using Moisture Conditioned Soil. The depth of subgrade treatment is dependent on desired post-construction PVR. The table below presents recommended depth of subgrade treatment for various post-construction PVR levels.

Subgrade Treatment - Moisture Conditioning Option PVR

(inches) Thickness of Lime Cap

(inches)(1)&(2) Thickness of Moisture

Conditioned Soil below Lime Cap (feet)(3)

1 8 3.5 Notes:

1. Depth measured below bottom of the slab-on-grade, 2. Lime should be applied at a minimum rate of 36 pounds per square yard for a depth of 8-inches.

Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 260, “Lime Stabilized Subgrade”, or local equivalent, and

3. The moisture conditioned native clay soil should be compacted to 92 to 96 percent of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698) at a workable moisture level at least 4 percentage points above optimum and placed in loose lifts not exceeding 9 inches.

In areas where less than the recommended thickness of fill is required to bring the building pad to grade, we recommend that the existing soils be excavated to the depth recommended in table above and replaced with lime treated and moisture conditioned clay. Subgrade treatment should extend at least 5-feet horizontally beyond the perimeter of the building. Subgrade Treatment at Exterior Doorways. Subgrade treatment should extend beneath sidewalk areas that abut exterior doorways to the building. Failure to perform subgrade treatment in these areas can increase the probability of differential heaving between exterior sidewalks and doorways, resulting in exterior doors that won’t or have difficulty opening outward due to “sticking” caused by heaving sidewalk slabs.


Subgrade Moisture. The slab subgrade is prone to drying after being exposed and should be kept moist prior to slab placement. Moisture Barrier. A moisture barrier should be used beneath the slab foundation in areas where floor coverings will be utilized (such as, but not limited to, wood flooring, tile, linoleum and carpeting). Slab Deflection Analysis. Coefficient of subgrade reaction, k, values are soil, load and settlement dependent. Upon request by the Structural Engineer for this project, k value recommendations will be provided for the specific loading application in question.

5.12 Pavement Recommendations for rigid pavement and preparation of the pavement subgrade are provided in the following sections. A traffic study indicating the number and type of vehicles on which to base the pavement design was not provided. Therefore, our recommendations are based upon our experience with similar projects assuming normal vehicular loading. Any unusual loading conditions should be brought to our attention prior to finalizing the pavement design so that we may assess and modify our recommendations as necessary.

5.12.1 Rigid Pavement Portland cement concrete (PCC) with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi) should be utilized for rigid pavement. Grade 60 reinforcing steel should be utilized in the transverse and longitudinal directions. The following pavement thicknesses and reinforcing are recommended:

Paving Use Thickness (inches) Reinforcing

Parking Areas for Automobiles and Light Trucks 5 No. 3 bars spaced on 24-inch intervals or

12 x 12 – W5 x W5 welded wire fabric Drive Lanes and Areas Subjected to

Light to Medium Trucks 6 No. 3 bars spaced on 18-inch intervals or 12 x 12 – W6 x W6 welded wire fabric

Areas Receiving Heavy Trucks and Dumpsters 7 No. 3 bars spaced on 18-inch intervals or

12 x 12 – W6.5 x W6.5 welded wire fabric Concrete pavement thicknesses provided above can be increased an extra 1-inch as a substitution for lime stabilization of the pavement subgrade. Contraction joints should be spaced at about 30 times the pavement thickness up to a maximum of 15 feet in any direction. Saw cut control joints should be cut within 6 to 12 hours of concrete placement. Expansion joints should be spaced a maximum of 60-feet in any direction and should be placed where the pavement abuts any structure. Dowels should


have a diameter equal to 1/8 the slab thickness, be spaced on 12-inch intervals, and be embedded at least 9-inches. Where not specified herein, concrete pavement should comply with Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Standard Specifications, Item 360, "Concrete Pavement", or local equivalent.

5.12.2 Pavement Subgrade Predominantly fat clay and lean clay are expected to be encountered or exposed at pavement subgrade. The pavement subgrade should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8-inches and should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 95 percent maximum dry density (per ASTM D-698) and within ±2 percent of the optimum moisture content. We recommend the subgrade be stabilized using the following:

Reagent

Application Rate (pounds per square yard)

Application Depth (inches)

Lime 27 6 Lime stabilization should be performed in accordance with TxDOT Standard Specifications, Item 260, “Lime Stabilized Subgrade”, or local equivalent.

6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Data Assumptions. By necessity, geotechnical engineering design recommendations are based on a limited amount of information about subsurface conditions. In the analysis, the geotechnical engineer must assume subsurface conditions are similar to those encountered in the borings. The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of the field investigation and on the assumption that the exploratory borings are representative of the subsurface conditions throughout the site; that is, the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings at the time they were completed. Subsurface Anomalies. Anomalies in subsurface conditions are often revealed during construction. If during construction, different subsurface conditions from those encountered in our borings are observed, or appear to be present in excavations, we must be advised promptly so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Change of Conditions. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of the work at the site, if conditions have changed due either to natural causes or to construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or if structure locations, structural loads or finish grades are changed, we should be promptly informed and retained


to review our report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations, considering the changed conditions and/or time lapse. Design Review. GES, Inc. should be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications for this particular project that pertain to earthwork and foundations as a means to determine whether the plans and specifications are consistent with the recommendations contained in this report. Construction Materials Testing and Inspection. GES should be retained to observe earthwork and foundation installation and perform materials evaluation and testing during the construction phase of the project. This enables GES’s geotechnical engineer to stay abreast of the project and to be readily available to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required and, when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to unanticipated conditions. It is proposed that construction phase observation and materials testing commence by the project geotechnical engineer (GES) at the outset of the project. Experience has shown that the most suitable method for procuring these services is for the owner to contact directly with the project geotechnical engineer. This results in a clear, direct line of communication between the owner and the owner's design engineers and the geotechnical engineer. Report Recommendations are Preliminary. Until the recommended construction phase services are performed by GES, the recommendations contained in this report on such items as final foundation bearing elevations, final depth of undercut of expansive soils for non-expansive earth fill pads and other such subsurface-related recommendations should be considered as preliminary. Liability Limitation. GES cannot assume responsibility or liability for recommendations provided in this report if construction inspection and/or testing recommended herein is performed by another party. Warranty. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and their designated agents for specific application to design of this project. We have used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by reputable members of our profession practicing in the same or similar locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or intended.

Appendix A ‐ Project Location Diagrams

GES Project No. 20-0097 APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2

PROJECT LOCATION DIAGRAM - GENERAL


PROJECT LOCATION DIAGRAM - LOCAL

Appendix B ‐ Boring Location Diagram


BORING LOCATION DIAGRAM

Appendix C ‐ Boring Logs and Laboratory Results

62 73

33

31

28

32

29

18

90

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft to very stiff, dark gray.

Gray and brown at 2- to 10-feet.

With calcareous nodules at 6- to 10-feet.

Light brown and reddish brown, withslickensides below 10-feet.

Bottom of hole at 20.0 feet.

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.00

1.50

3.50

3.00

0.6

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.0

1.4

1.8

1.2

44

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE

CONTRACTOR GES GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY V.G.

DATE STARTED 2/26/20 COMPLETED 2/26/20

AFTER 15 MIN. Not Encountered

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED Not Encountered

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER B-01

CLIENT National Property Holdings

PROJECT NUMBER 20-0097

PROJECT NAME APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2

PROJECT LOCATION Baytown, Texas

RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20

Gorrondona Engineering Services4641 Kennedy Commerce Drive, Houston, TX 77032Telephone: 281-469-3347; Fax: 281-469.3594

66 93

35

31

32

30

17

91




Light brown and reddish brown below 10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

3.50

3.00

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.6

1.0

1.5

0.9

.7

49

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


59 70

28

29

27

32

27

16

FAT CLAY (CH) / SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) - Soft to very stiff, dark gray.


Light gray and light brown, with calcareousnodules at 6- to 10-feet.



ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

1.50

3.50

4.00

0.6

1.0

0.8

1.1

0.6

1.1

1.9

43

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


47 50

25

18

22

25

15

105

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Stiff, dark gray.

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) / SANDY LEANCLAY (CL) - Stiff to very stiff, gray, light grayand light brown, with calcareous nodules.

With silt pockets at 10- to 15-feet.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Very stiff, brown and reddishbrown.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

2.00

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.00

4.00

4.50

1.1

2.3

1.4

1.8

1.9

2.0

1.4

1.8

32

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY H.S.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


64 84

37

33

31

27

16

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft to firm, dark gray.

Gray and brown, with calcareous nodules at 2-to 8-feet

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) / SANDY LEANCLAY (CL) - Stiff to hard, light gray and lightbrown.

With sand pockets at 10- to 15-feet.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Stiff, brown and reddishbrown.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.00

2.50

4.50+

3.00

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.1

1.0

1.5

48

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


49 91

29

27

24

22

15

FAT CLAY (CH) - Firm, dark gray.

LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND(CL) - Soft to stiff, gray and brown.



FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) - Stiff, brown andreddish brown.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.50

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.50

2.00

4.00

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.9

0.5

0.9

1.3

34

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


57 84

32

31

27

31

15

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft to stiff, dark gray.


LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) - Firm, light grayand light brown, with calcareous nodules.



ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

0.50

3.00

1.50

3.00

2.50

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.0

42

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.


AFTER 15 MIN. 18.0 ft

INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED 18.0 ft

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


71 94

35

33

33

29

26

18

95





ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.50

3.00

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.9

0.5

0.6

0.8

1.3

53

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


62 93

32

30

30

29

17

93

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft to very stiff, dark gray and gray.




ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

0.8

0.4

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.4

1.5

1.7

45

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.



AFTER 15 MIN. Not Measured

AFTER ---

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


56 91

26

19

23

19

16

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) - Firm to stiff, dark gray and gray.


SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - Soft, light gray andlight brown, with calcareous nodules and sandseams.

CLAYEY SAND (SC) - Very stiff, light gray andlight brown.

FAT CLAY (CH) - Very stiff, brown and reddishbrown.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.50

2.00

2.00

2.50

1.00

3.50

4.00

1.8

1.5

0.9

1.8

1.0

1.5

2.0

40

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY H.S.

METHOD Auger

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




AFTER ---

LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


44 53

24

24

20

23

29

14

105

FAT CLAY (CH) - Soft, dark gray.

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) / SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) - Stiff, gray and brown.



FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Stiff, brown and reddish brown.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

2.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

2.50

0.4

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.8

1.1

.8

30

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


72 91

39

34

25

26

19






ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

1.50

1.50

1.50

2.50

2.50

0.4

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

1.1

1.3

53

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


65 92

38

38

33

27

28

17

97






ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

1.50

2.50

2.50

0.3

0.3

0.9

0.4

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.3

48

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


58 93

35

38

30

29

15






ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

1.50

1.50

4.50

4.50

3.50

0.5

0.8

0.8

1.0

0.9

1.3

1.4

43

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


47 58

25

19

20

30

14

110

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft, dark gray and gray.

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITHSAND (CL) - Stiff, light gray and light brown,with calcareous nodules.



ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

2.50

2.50

2.50

0.1

0.5

0.3

0.8

0.4

1.0

1.4

2.3

33

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


64 94

34

37

33

30

17




Brown and reddish brown, with slickensidesbelow 10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

0.1

0.8

0.9

0.6

1.1

1.0

1.4

47

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


42 86

23

19

17

39

14

LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL) - Firm, darkgray.

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft, gray.

LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND(CL) - Soft to very stiff, light gray and lightbrown, with calcareous nodules.



ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.50

1.00

1.00

2.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.8

0.9

0.9

28

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


59 70

31

26

30

31

16

92

FAT CLAY (CH) / SANDY FAT CLAY (CH) - Soft to very stiff, dark gray.





ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.50

1.50

2.00

2.00

3.50

3.00

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.4

1.1

1.5

1.5

43

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


61 93

38

36

33

31

16






ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.50

1.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

2.50

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.9

0.6

1.4

1.1

45

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


53 93

35

29

33

15

89

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Soft to hard, dark gray.



Brown and reddish brown, with sand pocketsbelow 10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.50

1.50

4.50+

2.00

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.9

1.5

1.0

.8

38

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


65 9240

37

32

17





ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

1.00

1.50

2.00

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.9

1.1

48

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


60 9035

32

30

17





ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

2.50

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.4

1.1

43

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


36

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Firm to stiff, dark gray.




ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

1.50

1.50

1.50

1.50

2.50

0.6

0.8

0.9

0.5

0.5

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


38





ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

1.00

0.50

2.00

1.50

0.5

0.6

0.1

1.0

0.8

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


38 8925

25

22

14

LEAN CLAY (CL) / LEAN CLAY WITH SAND(CL) - Soft to very stiff, dark gray and gray.

Light gray and light brown at 4- to 10-feet.



ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

0.50

0.50

2.00

1.00

4.00

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.6

24

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY V.M.

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY V.G.




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

20

-009

7.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


79 93

33

38

31

17

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Stiff to very stiff, dark gray.

Light brown and tan, with slickensides below10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

3.00

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

0.8

1.0

0.9

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.3

62

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY TA/VK




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)

PAGE 1 OF 1BORING NUMBER PB-01



PROJECT NAME 138-Acre Tract


RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

18

-058

5.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


56 68

24

27

15

26

14

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) / SANDY FATCLAY (CH) - Stiff to very stiff, dark gray anddark brown.

With iron nodules at 4- to 6-feet.


Light brown and tan, with slickensides below10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

2.00

3.00

4.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

0.8

1.0

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

42

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY TA/VK




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

18

-058

5.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


90 96

39

36

39

30

19

FAT CLAY (CH) / FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)- Stiff to very stiff, dark gray and dark brown.

Light gray and light brown, with iron nodulesand calcareous nodules at 8- to 10-feet.

Reddish brown and tan, with slickensides below10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

2.50

2.50

3.00

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.9

1.1

1.1

1.3

71

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY TA/VK




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

18

-058

5.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


62

22

24

25

15

100

FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) / SANDY FATCLAY (CH) - Stiff to hard, tan and brown.

Light gray and light brown, with iron nodulesand calcareous nodules at 4- to 10-feet.

Reddish brown and tan, with slickensides below10-feet.


ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

ST

4.00

3.50

3.00

4.00

4.00

4.50+

4.50+

1.0

0.9

0.9

1.0

0.8

1.1

1.0

.7

47

NOTES

GROUND ELEVATION

LOGGED BY JA

METHOD Auger

AFTER ---

HOLE SIZE


CHECKED BY TA/VK




LIQ

UID

LIM

IT

DE

PT

H(f

t)

0

5

10

15

20

GR

AP

HIC

LO

G

ATTERBERGLIMITS

FIN

ES

CO

NT

EN

T(%

)

MO

IST

UR

EC

ON

TE

NT

(%

)

PL

AS

TIC

LIM

IT

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

.(p

cf)


SA

MP

LE

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

RE

CO

VE

RY

%(R

QD

)

PO

CK

ET

PE

N.

(tsf

)

TO

RV

AN

E(t

sf)

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (t

sf)

Con

finin

gP

ress

ure

(psi

)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

BL

OW

CO

UN

TS

(N V

AL

UE

)






RE

V. G

EO

LO

G W

TO

R &

UC

18

-058

5.G

PJ

GIN

T U

S 2

9 JA

N 0

7.G

DT

3/

5/20


ABSORPTION SWELL TEST (ASTM D4546) RESULTS

Boring No.

Average Sample Depth (ft)

Sample Height (in)

Sample Diameter (in)

Initial Sample Volume (cu in)

B-06 B-07 B-08

3 7 3

0.8 0.8 0.8

3.93

Final Dial Reading (in)

Swell (%)

B-01 B-03 B-04

3 7 5

2.5

Initial Sample Weight (gr)

Initial Moisture (%)

Final Moisture (%)

Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf)

Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf)

Applied Over Burden (psi)

0.8 0.8 0.8

Initial Dial Reading (in)

125.5 127.1 131.0

31 26

127.1 129.3 119.9

2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93

24 25 27 36

28 24 21 24 25 35

95 100 105 100 100 86

122 123 127 123 125 116

0.0283 0.0418 0.0208 0.0368 0.0213 0.0152

2.6 6.7 4.7 2.6 6.7 2.6

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.24 0.00

0.0283 0.0418 0.0208 0.0418 0.0232 0.0152

Project No.: 20-0097

5 7 3 5 3 7


Boring No. B-09 B-10 B-11 B-12 B-13 B-14


0.8

Sample Diameter (in) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Sample Height (in) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

3.93

Initial Sample Weight (gr) 126.0 130.9 114.7 114.7 120.0 124.7

Initial Sample Volume (cu in) 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93

29

Final Moisture (%) 30 26 24 43 37 30

Initial Moisture (%) 29 22 23 43 37

121

Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 95 104 104 78 85 94

Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 122 127 128 111 116

0.0347 0.0312 0.1161

Applied Over Burden (psi) 4.7 6.7 2.6 4.7 2.6

0.1161

Swell (%) 0.66 0.94 0.31 0.00 0.25 0.00

Final Dial Reading (in) 0.1149 0.0549 0.0425 0.0347 0.0332

6.7

Initial Dial Reading (in) 0.1096 0.0474 0.04


'-' indicates not measured

B-16 B-17 B-18 PB-01 PB-02

Sample Height (in) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Average Sample Depth (ft) 5 3 7 5 5

Initial Sample Volume (cu in) 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.93

Sample Diameter (in) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Initial Moisture (%) 20 35 17 27 36 24

Initial Sample Weight (gr) 131.0 119.9 135.7 123.7 119.1

Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 127 116 132 120 115 128

Final Moisture (%) 21 39 17 30 36

Applied Over Burden (psi) 4.7 2.6 6.7 4.7 4.7 6.7

Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 106 86 112 94 85

Swell (%) 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.50 0.00

0.0639

Final Dial Reading (in) 0.0235 0.031 0.0987 0.0393 0.0292 0.0652

Initial Dial Reading (in) 0.0235 0.031 0.0952 0.0353 0.0293

0.16

103

-

132.1

2.5

7


Boring No. B-15


3 5


Boring No. PB-03 PB-04


Sample Diameter (in) 2.5 2.5

Sample Height (in) 0.8 0.8

Initial Sample Weight (gr) 117.7 134.2

Initial Sample Volume (cu in) 3.93 3.93

Final Moisture (%) 37 22

Initial Moisture (%) 37 22

Initial Dry Unit Weight (pcf) 83 106

Initial Wet Unit Weight (pcf) 114 130

Initial Dial Reading (in) 0.0167 0.0527

Applied Over Burden (psi) 2.6 4.7

Swell (%) 0.01 0.45

Final Dial Reading (in) 0.0168 0.0563


UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST


Gorrondona Engineering ServicesHouston, Texas


Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure

Client: National Property Holdings

Project: APBPB - Buildings 1 and 2

Location: Boring B-01

Sample Number: 5 Depth: 8' - 10'

Description: Gray and brown FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)

LL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.72 Type: Shelby Tube

Sample No.

Unconfined strength, tsf

Undrained shear strength, tsf

Failure strain, %

Strain rate, in./min.

Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio

Specimen diameter, in.

Specimen height, in.

Height/diameter ratio

1

1.2238

0.6119

7.0

0.998

32.2

119.6

90.4

99.9

0.8779

2.86

5.75

2.01

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1





Date Sampled:

Remarks:

Figure






LL = PI = PL = Assumed GS= 2.72 Type:

Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

0.7216

0.3608

6.1

0.999

31.9

119.5

90.5

99.2

0.8753

2.78

5.75

2.07

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Axial Strain, %

0 2.5 5 7.5 10

1

Tested By: D.T. Checked By: V.G.





Date Sampled: 2/26/2020

Remarks:

Figure





Description: Light gray and light brown LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

1.7616

0.8808

15.0

1.000

22.4

128.5

105.0

98.7

0.6179

2.76

5.75

2.08

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks:

Figure







Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

1.3401

0.6700

9.3

1.000

28.5

122.4

95.3

99.1

0.7823

2.78

5.75

2.07

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks:

Figure





Description: Gray and reddish brown FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

1.6549

0.8275

8.3

1.000

30.3

120.7

92.7

98.8

0.8326

2.84

5.75

2.02

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks:

Figure





Description: Light gray and light brown SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

0.8195

0.4097

15.0

1.000

22.7

128.3

104.6

98.8

0.6237

2.79

5.75

2.06

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks:

Figure





Description: Light gray and light brown FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

1.3083

0.6541

15.0

1.000

27.1

123.7

97.3

99.1

0.7445

2.74

5.75

2.10

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks:

Figure





Description: Light gray and light brown LEAN CLAY WITH SAND (CL)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

2.3436

1.1718

15.0

1.000

20.0

131.8

109.9

99.5

0.5453

2.77

5.75

2.08

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

1

2

3

4

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1







Remarks: Slickensided Failure

Figure





Description: Brown and reddish brown FAT CLAY (CH)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

1.4685

0.7342

3.1

0.997

30.7

120.8

92.4

99.7

0.8384

2.77

5.75

2.08

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Axial Strain, %

0 1.5 3 4.5 6

1







Remarks:

Figure





Description: Light gray and light brown FAT CLAY (CH)


Sample No.



Failure strain, %


Water content, %

Wet density, pcf

Dry density, pcf

Saturation, %

Void ratio




1

0.8139

0.4069

9.3

1.000

33.0

118.5

89.1

99.1

0.9067

2.81

5.75

2.05

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

ess

, ts

f

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

Axial Strain, %

0 5 10 15 20

1

Appendix D ‐ Aerial Photographs


AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH - 2018

Appendix E ‐ USGS Topographic Map


USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Appendix F ‐ Site Photographs


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Facing Northwest at Boring B-02 Facing South at Boring B-05

Facing West at Boring B-07 Facing Northwest at Boring B-08


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Facing North at Boring B-11 Facing Northwest at Boring B-13

Facing North at Boring B-15 Facing Southeast at Boring B-16


SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Facing Northeast at Boring B-18 Facing East at Boring B-20

Appendix G ‐ Geologic Information


GEOLOGIC ATLAS


USGS GEOLOGIC FAULT MAP

Appendix H ‐ Unified Soil Classification System

(50%

mixtures

clays

GW

SANDS

AND

AND

ORGANICSOILS

50%

50%

SW

GM

SM

ML

MH

PT

GP

SP

GC

SC

CL

CH

OL

OH

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART

COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

FINE-GRAINED SOILS

(more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.)

or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.)

Well-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines

Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines)

Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines)

Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines)

Sands with fines (More than 12% fines)

Well-graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rockflour, silty of clayey fine sands or clayeysilts with slight plasticity

Inorganic clays of low to mediumplasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays,silty clays, lean clays

Inorganic silts, micaceous ordiatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,elastic silts

Peat and other highly organic soils

Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sandmixtures, little or no fines

Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands,little or no fines

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat

Organic silts and organic silty clays oflow plasticity

Organic clays of medium to highplasticity, organic silts

GRAVELS

SILTS

CLAYS

SILTS

CLAYS

HIGHLY

More than 50%of coarse

fraction largerthan No. 4sieve size

50% or moreof coarse

fraction smallerthan No. 4sieve size

Liquid limitless than

Liquid limit

or greater

LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA

GWgreater than 4; between 1 and 3= =C C

D D

D D Du c

60 30

x10 10 60

GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

GMAtterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4 Above "A" line with P.I. between

4 and 7 are borderline cases

GCAtterberg limits above "A" requiring use of dual symbolsline with P.I. greater than 7

SWgreater than 4; between 1 and 3= =C C

D D

D D Du c

60 30

x10 10 60

SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW

SMAtterberg limits below "A"line or P.I. less than 4

Limits plotting in shaded zonewith P.I. between 4 and 7 areborderline cases requiring useof dual symbols.SC

Atterberg limits above "A"line with P.I. greater than 7

Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Dependingon percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size),coarse-grained soils are classified as follows:

Less than 5 percent GW, GP, SW, SPMore than 12 percent GM, GC, SM, SC5 to 12 percent Borderline cases requiring dual symbols

60

50

40

30

20

10

00

CL

CL+ML

CH

60 70 80 90 100

MH&OH

ML&OL

PLASTICITY CHART

10 20 30 40 50

LIQUID LIMIT (LL) (%)

PL

AS

TIC

ITY

IND

EX

(PI)

(%)

A LINE:PI = 0.73(LL-20)

TERMS DESCRIBING SOIL CONSISTENCY

Fine Grained Soils Coarse Grained Soils

Description Soft Firm Stiff

Very Stiff Hard

Penetrometer Reading (tsf)

0.0 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.5 1.5 to 3.0 3.0 to 4.5

4.5+

Penetration Resistance (blows/ft)

0 to 4 4 to 10

10 to 30 30 to 50 Over 50

Description Very Loose

Loose Medium Dense

Dense Very Dense

Relative Density 0 to 20% 20 to 40% 40 to 70% 70 to 90%

90 to 100%

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

geotechnical engineering report - fused industries · 2020. 8. 12. · astm d1140 standard test...

Documents